It was announced by the press in November 1960 that the preparatory committee, which had been considering the aims and structure of the proposed Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to replace the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), had completed its report and was planning to transmit it to a conference of ministers of the twenty European and North American nations involved in organizing OECD. One of the most difficult problems in reaching agreement was reportedly the refusal of the United States to accept a definite commitment to coordinate its economic policy with those of the other members. A compromise was finally reached, providing that the convention would: 1) bind members, in making their basic economic decisions—on interest rates, for example—to avoid measures that would endanger other countries; and 2) require members to cooperate closely in carrying out the basic aims of the organization and, when necessary, to take coordinated action. In any case, the organization was to be able to take decisions only by unanimity. The proposed structure of the organization, reported to be similar to that of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was to include: 1) a Council on which all member states would be represented by permanent delegations; 2) a Council chairman, who would be selected to serve a one-year term and would preside at ministerial sessions of the Council, and two vice chairmen; and 3) a permanent staff headed by a Secretary-General, who would be chosen for a five-year term and would preside at Council sessions attended by the permanent representatives.

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.

The Council of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) met in Geneva from April 27 to May 4, 1955, after a week-long meeting of the ninemember Executive Committee. The Council approved a $48 million budget, of which $2.5 million was earmarked for administrative expenses. The $46.6 million operational budget would finance the processing, transport and resettlement of the 142, 165 Europeans the Committee hoped to move in 1955. The major countries of immigration were expected to be Australia, United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Venezuela; major countries of emigration were expected to be Trieste and Italy, Germany, Austria, Greece, Netherlands.

The ninth session of the Ministerial Council of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was held in Ankara, Turkey, April 27–28, 1961, under the chairmanship of Mr. Selim Sarper, Foreign Minister of Turkey. The session opened with a speech by General Gursel, the Turkish head of state, in which he said that the alliance had achieved successful results in the fields of security, economic development, and cultural activities. According to the press, there was a controversy as to the primary role of the alliance, with Mr. Hussein Ghods Nakhai, the Iranian Foreign Minister, referring to CENTO as an economic and defensive organization, in that order, while Mr. Manzoor Quadir, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, emphasized the defense aspect of the organization by stating that CENTO had to concern itself with developing the military as well as the economic strength of the area. Mr. M. O. A. Baig, retiring Secretary-General of the organization, was said to have asserted in his report to the session that only the presence of the United States gave meaning and validity to any “free world” defense alliance, CENTO included, even though the United States was not a full member of the organization. United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk, in addressing the session, pledged the continued cooperation of his country for the mutual security of the area.

In his report to the 36th session of the International Labor Conference the Director-General (Morse) selected the problem of productivity as a special theme for emphasis and debate. Mr. Morse wrote that since 1950 the need for higher productivity had become steadily more apparent, that a great deal of the work of the International Labor Organization had always impinged on the problem of productivity, and that during the last four years he had increasingly stressed the need to extend and intensify ILO's work on this problem. He urged the delegates to the conference to do what they could “to secure a wide-spread comprehension and acceptance of the need for higher productivity and of the ways in which it can be achieved.” Three main ways in which the resources needed to raise the living standards of the less well-to-do section of the community might be made available were: 1) a larger proportion of total output of wealth might be distributed to wages and social services at the expense of recipients of other income; 2) where there was less than full employment, an increase in wealth could be achieved by bringing all available resources into employment; and 3) total output might be increased by securing a larger output per unit of resources already in employment. Mr. Morse believed that the most essential conditions under which higher productivity would yield an increase in welfare were: a) that there should be the fullest possible consultation and cooperation between employers and workers in the application of measures to raise productivity, b) that the benefits of higher productivity should be fairly distributed, c) that effective action should be taken to ensure that higher productivity did not lead to unemployment, and d) that higher productivity should be sought by means which only required of workers a working speed and intensity which they could maintain without increased fatigue, strain, or risk to health or safety.

Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East: The seventeenth session of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) was held in New Delhi, India, from March 8 to 22, 1961.1 In addition to delegates from member countries there were observers present from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Turkey, the United Arab Republic, Yugoslavia, and West Germany, as well as from the United Nations specialized agencies and nineteen nongovernmental organizations. The main topics under consideration at the session were 1) the use of resources released through disarmament, 2) possible adverse effects on Asia of European economic groupings, and 3) the establishment of a regional petroleum institute. The question of fluctuations in commodity prices and the need for increased regional economic cooperation were also discussed. In presenting the report of the session, which was later approved, Mr. Sashichiro Matusui of Japan, the chairman of the drafting committee, noted that the Commission had heard statements by several delegates on the credentials of the delegation of Laos. The delegate of the Soviet Union, in particular, questioned the validity of the credentials of the delegation of King Savang Vatthana and contended that the delegation did not represent the “legal government” of Prince Souvanna Phouma. However, the committee examining the credentials of the Laotian delegation had found them in order.

The first part of the thirteenth ordinary session of the Consultative Assembly was held from April 24 to 28, 1961, under the chairmanship of Mr. Per Federspiel (Danish Moderate Liberal) who was unanimously re-elected to that position. Mr. Emile Liquard (French U.N.R.), rapporteur df the Bureau and Standing Committee, announced to the Assembly that pursuant to discussions at the twelfth ordinary session the Turkish Foreign Minister had been invited to participate at the thirteenth session; however, in view of the present political activity in that country the Foreign Minister had stated that he would be unable to attend. Mr. Liquard also noted that the Swiss and Israeli observers were subsequently to be seated in the Assembly hall. The Bureau and Standing Committee recommended that a draft resolution presented by Mr. Peter Kirk (British Conservative) on the situation in Spain should be referred to the Political Committee for report and to the Committee on Non-Represented Nations for an opinion; the Assembly adopted the proposal and also unanimously approved another proposal, suggested by the Committee of Ministers, that Cyprus be invited to become a full member of the Council of Europe.

The Council of Ministers of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) held its third meeting in Geneva from February 14 to 16, 1961, under the chairmanship of Mr. Maudling, President of the Board of Trade of the United Kingdom. The main topics of discussion were 1) the advancement of the timetable for the reduction and elimination of tariffs within EFTA, and 2) the proposed association of Finland with EFTA. The Ministerial Council decided to bring forward by six months to July 1, 1961, the date by which the next 10 percent reductions were to be made in the tariffs applied within EFTA. The Ministers stated in the final communiqué of the meeting that the Council should pursue at official level the examination of the possibility of advancing the timetable for reducing and eliminating the tariffs applied within EFTA. The basic objective was to ensure that by January 1, 1970, if not before, goods manufactured within the area would be traded among the seven as if no frontiers existed. The Council agreed that this examination should be carried out at the same time as the following studies previously planned for 1961 in accordance with other provisions of the EFTA convention: 1) dismantling quantitative restrictions; 2) abolishing subsidized agricultural exports; and 3) facilitating the expansion of trade in agricultural goods. The Ministers also reached agreement on the form of association to be offered to Finland. Under the formula decided upon, Finland would in no sense be a member of EFTA but would have an ultimately tariff-free market for her exports in the seven EFTA countries. A separate free trade area was to be formed between Finland on the one hand and the seven EFTA members on the other, and a special council was to be created for matters affecting Finland alone. Finland would not be treated as an EFTA member but would be allowed to retain its existing trade agreements with the Soviet Union without exposing EFTA members to an irresistible demand for the same benefits. On March 27, 1961, it was announced by the press that Finland had signed the agreement linking her with EFTA.

The Security Council convened on November 16, 1964, at the request of Syria and Israel to consider the outbreak of hostilities the border between the two countries on November 13. The Council devoted its 1162nd, 1164th-! 169th, 1179th, and 1182nd meetings, held on November 16, November 27-December 8, December 17, and December 21, 1964, respectively, to the discussion of this question. The Council also had before it a letter of November 14, 1964, from the representative of Israel describing the border clash.2 At the invitation of the President, Michael S. Comay (Israel) and Rafik Asha (Syria) took places at the Council table to participate without vote in the Council's deliberations.

The 1963 UN Pledging Conference on the Expanded Program of Technical Assistance (EPTA) and the Special Fund was held at UN Headquarters on October 15, 1963, under the presidency of D. O. Hay (Australia). Opening the Conference, Secretary-General U Thant stressed the achievements of EPTA and the Special Fund in the past twelve years. However, he said, powerful social pressures generated by the desire of increasing populations for decent living standards had also grown. Both programs therefore had to be further strengthened if they were to help the emerging nations raise the living levels of their peoples and their capacity for growth.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development announced on September 6, 1961, a loan equivalent to $3 million to the Central Bank of Costa Rica to assist in a program for the importation of equipment for the development of private industry. The loan was guaranteed by the government of Costa Rica and was for a twelve-year term; the six private banks participating in the loan for a total of $314,000 were to receive the first two maturities falling due in October 1964 and April 1965. On October 13, 1961, the Bank announced three loans. The first, amounting to $34 million, was to the National Power Corporation of the Philippines to assist in financing a large hydroelectric project on the island of Luzon. Twelve United States commercial banks participated in the loan to the amount of $1,217,000 covering the first three maturities of the 25-year term of the loan that was scheduled for semi-annual amortization payments beginning June 1, 1965. On the same day a loan of $50 million to India to assist in railway development under the Third Five-Year Plan was made known. Five United States commercial banks participated for a total of $1,075,000 in the twenty-year term loan with repayment scheduled to begin inFebruary 1965. The final loan announced on October 13 was to Costa Rica for the improvement of its highway system; the International Bank and the International Development Association (IDA) joined in making $11 million available for that purpose, each offering $5.5 million for the financing of the reconstruction and construction of about 420 miles of national and regional highways and for the import of equipment for highway construction and maintenance. Three commercial banks participated to the extent of $150,000 in the fifteen-year term loan; amortization was to begin on May 1, 1965.

Over the years I have often wondered whether Dag Hammarskjöld belonged to an age that is passing, or to one that is being born. He was a bold innovator in world affairs, and he opened up a future, having carried further than it has ever been carried before the principle of international action to promote peace. Yet he was himself the fine flower of the European tradition of civility which, if it is not dying, certainly is not flourishing today.

The fourth regular session of the General Assembly opened at Flushing Meadows, New York, on September 20, 1949. The Assembly was to consider an agenda of 68 items, including the annual reports of the three United Nations Councils, the Secretary-General, and subsidiary bodies; and special reports from commissions operating in Korea, Palestine and the Balkans. Other topics for discussion were the disposition of the Italian Colonies, Indonesia, the situation in China, atomic energy, creation of a United Nations Field Service, economic development of under-developed areas, freedom of information, Southwest Africa, information from non-self-governing territories, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania.

The report covering the eleventh fiscal year, June 1, 1959, to May 31, 1960, of the International Whaling Commission, including the eleventh meeting of the Commission, held in London from June 22 to July 1, 1959, and also the meeting of the Commission's ad hoc Scientific Committee, held in London from May 10 to 13, 1960 was presented and approved by the Commission at its twelfth meeting in that city in June 1960. As no proposals were made at the eleventh meeting for altering the blue whale unit limit on baleen whales taken in the Antarctic, it remained the same (15,000 units) as for the previous season, and in the 1959/1960 season there were again twenty pelagic expeditions operating in the Antarctic, although the total number of catchers operating with the twenty expeditions was reduced from 235 in the previous season to 217, distributed among Japan, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Norway, and the Netherlands. The period over which the Antarctic catch was taken was considerably longer than in the previous three seasons, since, in accordance with a decision reached at the eleventh meeting of the Commission, the fin and sei whale season had opened ten days earlier than previously, although the opening date of the blue whale season had remained unaltered. Expeditions also continued whaling longer than in the previous season, the catching period for all the expeditions taken together averaging about 99 days in contrast to the 69-day total of the year 1958/1959, while the increase in the total catch was a little over 1 percent, consisting mainly of fin and sei whales.

The Executive Committee of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) met in Geneva for its ninth session, September 24 to October 14, 1957, under the presidency of André Viaut. Discussing the International Geophysical Year (IGY), which had taken precedence in WMO activities, the committee approved the report of the working group on the IGY, re-established the group with revised terms of reference, and adopted a resolution on IGY world data centers. In its consideration of the meteorological aspects of the peaceful uses of atomic energy the committee endorsed the existing policy for action and examined the report of a panel of experts which had met in Geneva in December 1956. The committee pointed out the need for members to keep informed on the subject, and suggested that the Secretary-General prepare and distribute consolidated bibliographical lists from information supplied by members of the panel and by other WMO members. The Secretary-General was also authorized to negotiate an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At its fourteenth meeting, held in Guadeloupe from May 6 to 10, 1952, the Caribbean Commission reviewed the report of the Conference on Industrial Development which met in February in Puerto Rico, expressed its appreciation of the report, and passed it on, together with the commission's comments, to local and metropolitan governments for study of its 33 recommendations. The commission gave special consideration to the conference recommendation relating to an examination by an expert of the effect of income tax laws and practices on “pioneer industries”, instructing the Secretary-General (de Vriendt) to ascertain from the chairman of the United Nations Fiscal Commission or other appropriate international bodies whether the service of an expert on this kind of fiscal problem could be made available. Regarding the recommendation that it should arrange for studies of selected industries, the commission felt that industrialists and industrial organizations concerned, territorial governments and suitable international bodies should be asked to share the expenses of such studies and directed the Secretary-General to investigate possibilities in this respect.

The ninth meeting of the Consultative Committee of the Colombo Plan for Cooperative Economic Development in South and South-East Asia was held in Saigon, Viet Nam, October 21–24, 1957. The committee considered the draft annual report which reviewed the progress of economic development in the area and outlined the unfinished tasks. It was announced that the annual Canadian contribution to the Colombo Plan would be increased in 1958–1959, subject to the approval of Parliament, to $35 million. The United States representative informed the conference that a new $300 million development loan fund was being organized by his government to assist countries of south and southeast Asia. The Federation of Malaya was welcomed as a member of the Colombo Plan. On the final day of the meeting the invitation of the United States to hold the next year's meeting in the United States was accepted. The meeting adopted the draft annual report and issued a communiqué which noted the economic progress made in the area in the year under review and outlined some of the future tasks in economic development.

The sixteenth annual report of the Executive Directors of the International Monetary Fund for the fiscal year ending April 30, 1961, was transmitted to the Chairman of the Board of Governors on June 23, 1961, by Mr. Per Jacobsson, Chairman of the Executive Board. The report stated that in contrast to the year 1959, when virtually all countries had participated in world-wide expansion, the year 1960 and early part of 1961 had presented a less unified picture. For the world as a whole, the expansionary elements had considerably outweighed the contractionary elements. World industrial production, excluding the countries of the Soviet area, had been almost 6 percent greater in 1960 than in 1959, having grown by 10 percent; and the value of world trade had increased by 12 percent, compared with 6 percent in 1959. The stimulus for the rise in world trade had come predominantly from the booming European industrial countries and from Japan, which had increased their imports by nearly 20 percent; there had been a slight decline in imports from the United States and Canada. The imports of the less-industrialized countries had also increased considerably, by some 10 percent. Trade developments during 1960 had improved the basic international payments situation in some respects. Rising exports and slightly declining imports caused an increase in the surplus of private goods and services account in the United States. West Germany's surplus also increased, while France's remained stationary; decreases had been noted in several other industrial countries, in particular Japan and Italy, where the rate of economic expansion had been exceptionally high, and in the United Kingdom, mainly due to the sharp growth of imports associated with their high level of economic activity.

In the sixteen years since the United Nations on the invitation of the United States established its principal headquarters in New York, there have been remarkably few incidents and little publicity in connection with the immunities and privileges of Members' representatives. This is no doubt due not to the clarity or quality of the relevant juridical instruments but to the tact and understanding of all concerned: the United Nations and more particularly its Secretaries-General, the representatives of the Member States and in a very large measure the Department of State and the United States Mission to the United Nations. It was the violent reaction of Chairman N. S. Khrushchev, attending the fifteenth session of the General Assembly as head of the Soviet Union delegation, against the restrictions imposed upon his movements in the United States by the Department of State which drew attention to the question of the rights and privileges of delegations to the United Nations. For the first time the head of the delegation of a great power and a permanent member of the Security Council was subjected to such restrictions. Speaking in the General Assembly, Mr. Khrushchev referred to “the various restrictions of the rights of representatives of States in the United Nations” and the “instances … of the representatives of young African and Asian States being subjected to racial discrimination.” He raised the question “whether or not thought should be given to the choice of another location for the United Nations Headquarters which would better facilitate the effective work of this international organization.”The nature and extent of these restrictions will be discussed below but it may be well to begin with a survey and analysis of the bewildering array of instruments which govern this matter.